Talk:Opinion poll

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2019; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opinion poll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151010133249/http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/AAPOR_Social_Media_Report_FNL.pdf to https://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/AAPOR_Social_Media_Report_FNL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Source Content under 'Social media as a source of opinion on candidates'

Greetings all.

I have removed the following text under the section Social media as a source of opinion on candidates to keep the page unbiased and neutral:

"This fact makes the issue of fake news being spread throughout it more influential. Other evidence surrounding fake news shows that: the most popular fake news stories were more widely shared on Facebook than the most popular mainstream news stories; many people who see fake news stories report that they believe them; and the most discussed fake news stories tended to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. As a result of these facts, some have concluded that if not for these stories, Donald Trump may not have won the election over Hillary Clinton."

The current source links to https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf

On page 212 of that source we can see the quote that has been added to the Wikipedia page. This source cites Craig Silverman as the source and comes from BuzzFeed. Please see WP:Buzzfeeds Reputation and note "a Pew Research Center surveyfound that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation."

As a result I have removed this source content to strengthen the articles neutral point of view, as well as uphold Wikipedia's goal for facts to take precedence over opinions. (See Facts Precede Opinions)

Thank you. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]